The events of recent weeks in the UK and US will have put many on edge. The tyrannical zeal of the American far right; Elon Musk’s thirst for civil war in Britain; the menace of Nigel Farage – all these are factors. But, for me, another is the knowledge that our first line of defence is Keir Starmer.
The fanaticism of the US right
Since the murder of the American far-right activist Charlie Kirk, something has shifted. US fascists – with their maniacal combination of white supremacy, ‘Christian nationalism’ (which would be considered blasphemy by any Christian I know), and obscene wealth, are on a war footing. If you’re an American with enlightenment values, they mean to take you down, using whatever methods they can get away with. And they’ve got their sights on the UK too.
This sounds far-fetched. Yet analysis of their words and deeds since Kirk’s murder, which came to a seething head at his memorial service on 21 September, leaves no room for doubt. “Are you ready to put on the full armour of God?”, asked avowed white nationalist Jack Posobiec. “They cannot conceive of the army they have arisen”, cried Trump adviser Stephen Miller in a speech with references to classical Greece reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels. “This isn’t a political war; it’s not even a cultural war; it’s a spiritual war”, declared “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth.
These people have the crazed conviction of all fanatics who tell themselves that, whatever they do, God is on their side. They view those who don’t see the world through their eyes not as political opponents but as enemies to be crushed. They are on a mission to kill liberal democracy around the world.
A template for a Farage premiership
We need to be clear-sighted. What we see happening now in the US is what Farage would like to see happening in the UK. Yes, he may have his own very English, self-deprecating manner. We may have a different political culture. We may not have readily available guns. But fascism will morph into the right fit for the society it targets. If the US’s written constitution with all its guardrails cannot protect it from authoritarian government, why would our unwritten constitution with no guardrails, combined with an electoral system which gives undiluted power to minority governments, save us?
What Farage is willing to say now is not the same as what Farage would be willing to do if he held unchecked power in five years’ time, especially if the MAGA movement finds a way – democratic or otherwise – of retaining power. As Prime Minister, Farage would follow the Trump playbook. He would pursue political opponents and target minorities. He would strip of us of our rights. He would blacklist journalists he didn’t like, and politicise the judiciary and civil service. He would tolerate hate speech as ‘free speech’. Even since the murder of Kirk, he has been emboldened to tout ever-more-extreme policies. He is already creating a climate of fear in the UK.
Farage: when is incitement to violence not incitement to violence?
Furthermore, if you study Farage’s considered words rather than his soundbites, you will see that he doesn’t really have a problem with incitement to violence. Earlier this month he submitted written evidence to the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee about Lucy Connolly, a woman jailed for inciting violence against refugees, whom Reform are treating as a martyr.
He quoted what Connolly had said: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care”. And then he went on to say the following: “What Lucy Connolly said in her X message, which was only visible for 3.5 hours, may have been expressed inelegantly, but it was a sentiment that was being felt by a lot of people at that moment, and it should not have been criminalised.”
In other words, it’s the view of the man treated as a PM-in-waiting by much of the press that incitement to murder isn’t so big a deal if lots of people are thinking similar things and you only do it for a few hours. It’s really no more than ‘inelegant expression’.
What do we need from a prime minister?
Which brings us back to Starmer. I recognise that no other peacetime prime minister has faced geopolitical, societal and economic challenges on quite this scale. I do not believe in constant change, especially after the chaos of the last decade. But it’s reasonable to ask whether he really has the attributes needed for the fight ahead.
What do we need? First, we need a prime minister who can tell a story of hope – even in hard times – to challenge the divisive darkness of the narrative put forward by Reform. It’s welcome news that Starmer now plans to launch a “progressive fightback”, but I have my doubts about his ability to do it. It’s not just about knowing the story, it’s about being able to tell it persuasively.
Moral leadership
Second, we need a prime minister who can provide instinctive moral leadership. Who knows right from wrong and isn’t afraid to say so. Who can appeal to our collective humanity, being tough where necessary without indulging in performative cruelty.
As I wrote recently, if you fail to condemn the immoral, immediately and unambiguously, you give it credence. Starmer and his office repeatedly fail this test – most recently in refusing to condemn in suitable terms Reform’s repugnant proposal to withdraw indefinite leave to remain for people settled in the UK. Overnight, Reform put fear into the hearts of millions of UK residents where previously there had been none. Yet No 10 offered no words of condemnation beyond their usual suggestion that the policy was unworkable, as if the fears of those millions, and the need to reassure them, were no concern of government.
Taking the fight to Farage
Third, we need a prime minister who can fight Farage on his own terms – exposing him for the empty vessel he is; ridiculing him mercilessly; tearing him to shreds just like any decent interviewer can when Farage isn’t too cowardly to avoid them.
It may not be his fault, but Starmer is dreadfully wooden, all the more so by comparison with Farage. Compare the personable manner, confident projection and strong voice which Farage uses to convey his poisonous messages, with Starmer’s weak, slightly strangled voice, which – whatever his words – robs him of authority. These things matter a great deal.
With polls indicating that Trump remains deeply unpopular in the UK even among many would-be Reform voters, an obvious way of attacking Farage is on his closeness to the whole MAGA machine. In a world where we weren’t so dependent on the US on so many fronts, we would expect a British prime minister to be condemning Trump and his fellow fascists unreservedly.
We can all understand why he isn’t doing this, even if his sheer obsequiousness is hard to stomach. But over the next few years, the electoral arguments for attacking Farage on his closeness to Trump will need to be weighed against the geo-political arguments for not doing so, especially if Trump continues the descent into authoritarianism at his current rate. If they need to go on the attack, Labour will not be able to pull it off with a hopelessly compromised Starmer at the helm.
All is far from lost. But the battle ahead needs a leader with exceptional powers of oratory and a commitment to fight fascism with all their might, wherever their personal politics sit within the parameters of meaningful democracy.
These are tall orders. There may be nobody up to the task. But it feels clear to me that Starmer isn’t. The Labour Party has one big advantage. It has plenty of time before the next election. It should use it.
More on politics.
Your voice, your story – independent powerful citizen journalism.
Consider supporting us monthly
A newspaper costs approximately £60.00/year, you can enjoy Bylines Scotland for £36.00/year – please think about supporting independent citizen journalism
